Beer and Wine are readily available at Swiss Ranges. It's not uncommon to start a bottle of wine before the days shooting, and to finish the bottle after the day's shooting has ended. Yet, Swiss Ranges remain largely accident free.

Click to expand...

If you would like I can e-mail you full page scans but that's everything gun related on pages 1 & 2 of the textbook.

It's good to see that their bias didn't leak into what they were actually trying to teach

I went through a lot of this a few years back in grad school. The stats are really messed up to say the least.

A big one that I fought against is that there is a line the read something like "legal intervention" in the US stats. The professor could not/would no answer what that was for a week or more. Finally he took the time to look into it.

That is police shootings! Now, we, the gun owners are getting blamed for it when some scumbag that needs shot gets shot by the police.

To say the least these "professors" are using a stats class (and we all know that the numbers will say anything you want them to) to preach their liberal dribble.

Anyway, what else would one expect these days? Real impartial education based on facts?!!? Couldn't have that.

God, there are so many holes in this argument -- I can't believe it comes from Harvard. Wait, yes I can. Egads, is this our highest institution of learning in this country? Let me put it in simple terms for you Harvard numbskulls:

CORRELATION DOES NOT IMPLY CAUSALITY.

Statistics only indicate a difference between populations, not the cause of the difference. Yes, more Americans get killed than Japanese. We have a higher percentage of handguns here, but we also have a higher percentage of Americans. Which is the cause of the difference?

If you had a statistic that showed that people who drink are more likely to be unemployed -- did the drinking cause the unemployment, or did the unemployment cause the drinking? Statistics don't show causes -- only differences.

Only a Harvard grad (or your average Rosie O'Donnell fan) would draw a conclusion from a single statistic.

Of course, no matter how powerful, no statistic will convince everyone that a given conclusion is true.

Furthermore, citing these numbers as a refutation of "guns don't kill people, people do" is an example of the gross misuse of statistics. I believe it rises to a logical fallacy as well.

They did not cite the numbers of people murdered in each country, so it is impossible to determine whether the tools used influence the number of people killed significantly.

They did not specify whether a handgun was used in defense by a policeman, an innocent homeowner, or offensively by a criminal.

WRT correlation, one could look at the list of countries and, if one didn't worry about proving causation, make a rather simple observation: ethnic diversity kills. The United States is far and away the most ethnically diverse in the list.

I think you completely misread something here and failed to understand what statistics mean. Last point first. Statistics don't 'prove' anything. They are just probabilities.

You claim in the title that the book proves gun owners are flat earthers. No, that isn't what is being said at all.

"...after all, there are still members of the Flat Earth Society."

It does not say that they are all members, but that the society still exists with members. The author is suggesting that it is just as silly to believe in the notion of the Flat Earth as it is that guns don't kill people. The author is NOT saying gun owners are members of the Flat Earth Society.

The book has an obvious bias, but the humor you have tried to find and the fun you are poking is just as wrong as the implications of the textbook.

I would rather be a "flat Earther" than a "coolaid drinker" like thae author of that textbook!

Click to expand...

They are the "kool-aid mixers," not the drinkers, appealing to the common "we are smarter than everyone else" attitude of many of the students by comparing people who refuse to give over all power to the government to "flat-earthers."

If half of Swedish murders in 1979 had been by firearm that number for sweden would have been roughly 55.
The difference between roughly 110 murders one fifth of which are by firearms (and today the number of deaths by firearms in sweden has increased, despite stricter firearms laws) and 21 460 murders, roughly half of which is perpetrated using firearms can not be explained by either the difference in population size (roughly 1 to 20, which would give sweden roughly 1060 murders in 1979), nor by the amount of firearms in USA, remove all firearms related murders above one forth of the total perpetrated without firearms you still get 13000 murders, that would still be 650 murders compared to the roughly 110 actual murders in sweden.
The explanation to the higher amounts of murders in USA can not be found in firearms, so where do you find it? whichever way you look at it the firearms are merely a tool, and though they make more attempted murders successful, they dont explain the high discrepancy in murders even when firearms deaths are lifted out.

Although The High Road has attempted to provide accurate information on the forum, The High Road assumes no responsibility for the accuracy of the information. All information is provided "as is" with all faults without warranty of any kind, either express or implied. Neither The High Road nor any of its directors, members, managers, employees, agents, vendors, or suppliers will be liable for any direct, indirect, general, bodily injury, compensatory, special, punitive, consequential, or incidental damages including, without limitation, lost profits or revenues, costs of replacement goods, loss or damage to data arising out of the use or inability to use this forum or any services associated with this forum, or damages from the use of or reliance on the information present on this forum, even if you have been advised of the possibility of such damages.